Comment by sokoloff
4 years ago
That's your belief. An equally valid alternate belief is that it was a food safety law, intended to ensure that no products were sold which contained trace amounts of sesame without being disclosed on the label. This is why we rely on the contents of laws rather than our beliefs/feelings about what the contents should have been.
No one can be compelled against their will to manufacture a product containing no sesame, even if they were probably doing so before this law was passed.
> This is why we rely on the contents of laws rather than our beliefs/feelings about what the contents should have been.
This is called "the letter of the law", and in practice courts do not rely on it.
In this specific case, do you believe that any of these companies have violated the law in any fashion which is actionable? (whether you call it spirit, text, belief, letter, feelings, or ouija) They appear to be complying with the law in a quite straightforward manner.